Subject: [P2PSIP] comments on draft-matuszewski-p2psip-security-requirements-05

From: Bruce Lowekamp <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:55:02 +0200

I thought this revision of the document was a significant improvement
and thank the authors for spending so much time reorganizing and
rewriting pieces of it.

I liked the general discussion of issues.  When it got into the
RELOAD-specific part I was less certain how to apply it.  It might be
helpful if the draft uses RELOAD to refer to the specific protocol and
P2PSIP or even another term to discuss general p2p communications
system issues to avoid confusion.

This draft appears to have the wrong IPR declaration at the beginning.
 Since it incorporates material that was contributed prior to 11/2008,
it can't use this declaration.

I still find the term "overlay base" confusing.

Again, depending on whether parts of the discussion are intended to be
general about p2p telecom or specific to RELOAD and work in the p2psip
working group, some of the discussion and terms need to be updated.
For example, there is no separate protocol for peer vs client
communication (even though there is discussion of whether additional
methods are needed for client operation, I don't believe anyone is
arguing for separate protocols at this point).

Bruce